ThoseWhoStayUofM

Recently Stefan made a video about the truth regarding the Israel and Palestine conflict. I was wondering if anybody, Stefan included, could make a reaction to the video below based upon the information presented in that video, as well as any outside information that may not have been covered.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Ugsv5u-sW0I may have a lot of bias, as Pat Condell almost certainly does, but I fail to see any faults in his reasoning here. Perhaps the only fault is his failure to recognize Israeli aggression within the conflict, but at no point should that excuse the blatant immorality of Hamas.Although the truth videos are very informative, I find dialectical discourse to be the best form of achieving truth.

If you are going to talk about private property, it's important to start with the foundations of property theory. I wrote a paper on a subject very similar to this already with respect to Lockean philosophy. Here is the answer that you seek. Suppose radios were invented in a Lockean state of nature. Would a Lockean theory of natural property be able to make sense of private property rights in parts of the broadcast spectrum? Try working out such a theory in Lockean terms, and evaluate it against what you take to be the relevant interests to be served by allocating rights to broadcast over various distances on different frequencies. The question of whether a Lockean theory of natural property would be capable of accounting for specific broadcast spectrums of radio waves is an interesting one; one I believe is founded in an idea of whether extremely scarce resources can be appropriated as individual property. In this paper, I will examine Locke's theory of appropriating property that is held in common by all people and try to uncover how Locke would have addressed the issue of scarcity. Both Hobbes and Locke begin their arguments from the initial “state of nature”. Hobbes depicts this state of nature as harsh; a struggle of man against man. Locke took an entirely different approach. His view of the state of nature was one of abundance where the goal of property rights was not to deprive others of resources, but to ensure that every person retained the opportunity to obtain the resources required to flourish. A resource of extreme scarcity is one that Locke may never have considered. Locke's attempt to construct a tenable position of property rights began with the concept of self-ownership. Locke states, “yet every man has a property in his own person: this no body has any right to but himself.” (Locke, chapter 5, section 27)1 Locke then continues to establish the appropriation of individual property by means of mixing one's labor with what is held in common for every person, by doing so appropriates that resource to her individually. If we are to apply this construction of property rights to a resource of extreme scarcity, such as a part of the broadcast spectrum, we would simply state that when a person uses a radio transmitter over a specific radio frequency, she is mixing her labor with that frequency and thus that particular frequency is her personal property. Unfortunately, this is an incomplete characterization of Lockean property theory. The Lockean proviso seemingly makes private ownership of extremely scarce resources impossible. “Nor was this appropriation of any parcel of land, by improving it, any prejudice to any other man, since there was still enough and as good left, and more than the yet unprovided could use. So that, in effect, there was never the less left for others because of his enclosure for himself. For he that leaves as much as another can make use of does as good as take nothing at all. Nobody could think himself injured by the drinking of another man, though he took a good draught, who had a whole river of the same water left him to quench his thirst. And the case of land and water, where there is enough of both, is perfectly the same. (Locke, chapter 5, section 33)1” Here you can see the tension that this specific example, private ownership of broadcast frequencies, creates. If one individual uses a specific broadcast spectrum, i.e. justly appropriates a frequency of radio waves to herself by mixing her labor with it, then nobody else can attempt to use that specific frequency within its range without creating interference and turning that frequency to waste. Let's assume that several independent individuals appropriated each frequency range to themselves within a given region, by mixing their labor with their respective broadcast frequency, to the point that every frequency was in use. This would be in violation of Locke's proviso yet at the same time completely within the appropriation scheme outlined above. This seems to be a huge oversight by John Locke. In actuality, it's not. The Lockean proviso is more an exception to the rule than a rule in itself. If I take an abundant resource as my own, by mixing my labor with it, then no other person has any reason to object to this appropriation of it. There is still plenty for everyone else (Locke, chapter 5, section 33). On the other hand, if I mix my labor with a scarce resource and claim it as my own, I am harming other people by significantly limiting their opportunity to acquire similar resources. Because of this, and according to the Lockean proviso, acquisition of scarce resources as private property is illegitimate. To clarify, acquisition of specific frequencies of the broadcast spectrum is completely legitimate according to the Lockean theory of property acquisition so long as there is an abundance of other radio frequencies available for use in any given region. In the event that broadcast frequencies become scarce enough where the acquisition of a frequency harms the opportunity of others to transmit radio waves, appropriating frequencies in this way becomes illegitimate. This still could be seen as an incomplete characterization of Lockean property theory. There is another aspect of Locke's theory that hasn't been introduced yet. Locke said, “God gave the world to men in common; but since he gave it them for their benefit, and the greatest conveniences of life they were capable to draw from it, it cannot be supposed he meant it should always remain common and uncultivated (Locke, chapter 5, section 34).” If owning specific broadcast frequencies is illegitimate, does this mean no one can justifiably transmit radio waves? If this were the case, wouldn't that result in more waste than if appropriation of such a resource were acquired on a first-come-first-serve basis? I think that point has a lot of merit to it. Based on what Locke said in section 34, I can't imagine him disagreeing with the fact that everybody is better off if, at the very least, some people are permitted the exclusive use of radio waves to broadcast information and entertainment to anyone who has a receiver. Because of this, property rights must not create a system where everybody is worse-off. Although under the Lockean theory of property, the ownership of radio frequencies is still held in common by every person, permitting the exclusive use of such frequencies to individuals is highly advantageous for everyone. I believe, if Locke were presented with this problem, he would solve it by keeping broadcast frequencies in common ownership but also collectively allow the exclusive use of specific frequencies to those who want or need them the most in any given region, at any given time. The incomplete characterization I referenced above was the absence of money and governments. Locke said, “It is true, in land that is common in England, or any other country, where there is plenty of people under government, who have money and commerce, no one can enclose or appropriate any part, without the consent of all his fellow-commoners: Because this is left common by compact, i.e. by the law of the land, which is not to be violated (Locke, chapter 5, section 35).” I believe this is easily applicable to the common ownership of radio frequencies within the region of a country, such as the United States of America. Although I have provided reasons why radio frequencies are left in common, not by compact but instead by a violation of the Lockean proviso, our society still has a mutually beneficial interest in providing individuals with the exclusive use of such frequencies and thus can appropriate it to individuals by compact. This exclusive use of property held in common by everyone should go to the individuals who want and need it the most, i.e. are willing to relinquish the most of their private property to their fellow-commoners, for this exclusive use. After doing some independent research on this idea, I found others like me had already developed the idea, called geolibertarianism, which is a culmination of Georgism and libertarianism. Because radio frequencies are held in common, rent needs to be paid, not simply for the use of specific frequencies, but for the right to exclude others from using it. The beauty of geolibertarianism is that it is based on all of the above premises that Locke used to establish his theory of property rights, but simply clarifies what I believe is implicit in Locke's theory. There are several mechanisms for collecting this rent. The most obvious is the institution of government but anarchic philosophers have also devised private, voluntary associations that could collect and distribute rents in a similar fashion. Locke's philosophy of appropriating resources from common ownership to private ownership is reasonable and justifiable for resources that are relatively abundant. It provides us with a system of ownership where we can justly benefit from our labor and provides incentive for production. Admittedly, Locke's theory can be seen as problematic when considering resources that are relatively scarce. The appropriation of private property over scarce resources inherently implies the exclusion of others from the opportunity of acquisition. Because of this, Locke introduced what Nozick called, “the Lockian proviso” which I believe is nothing more than a clarification of Locke's work. In it, Locke accounted for the over-acquisition of resources, i.e. the appropriation of what is held in common by everyone to an individual that is more than what that individual is capable of using. Any acquisition of resources that fails to leave enough in common for everyone is illegitimate. It follows from this that scarce resources cannot be appropriated to private ownership because it reduces the ability for others to appropriate similar resources. The great benefit of money and government provides the solution. We can maintain collective ownership of scarce resources while still reaping the mutually beneficial rewards of awarding individuals the exclusive use of those resources. We can do this by introducing the concept of geolibertariansim, which I believe Locke's work entails when the logic of his arguments are applied to scarcity. 1John Locke, Two Treatises of Government

As the title says, I wrote this parable and I really want some feedback. I call it an anti-parable because it tells a story and is TOTALLY EXPLICIT about everything you can possibly imagine regarding what was happening in each character. It's supposed to make the reading think more empathically. I wanted your guys' feedback on whether you like the style at all. I think it's quite cool and I genuinely want to know what you all think.Here it is, I hope you like it. Mother: Well I'm going to need to tell your father about this, and it WILL be settled when he gets home!Child (female): fine, I don't care! *storms off to her room, willingly, door slamming loudly Mother (thinking): Oh, he's going to have a field day when he hears this one...Father comes home, sound of the door opening being the trigger.Mother runs to the door to meet him.Mother: How was your day, honey?! *she smiles brightly in a feigned hope for a long and detailed story about his monotonous and uneventful job. The father brushes off his eager wife, no longer finding her faithful interest intriguing in any way at all. To him, she is nothing but a dog showing faithful joy at his return, only to undoubtedly lose every ounce of interest in just a short while.Father: “It was fine!”, he pronounces snippetly towards what he views as nothing more than his house companion. “Lay off...”, he moans, which precedes her subsequent retreat, subconsciously building a wall to mask her painful neglect, as her eager clamoring was not reciprocated... and in fact was downright refused altogether.To her, this must have been some sort of game, for which she is testing the partner's “devotion” and “loyalty”, which seems to be a made-up word in order to invoke a sense of guilt in such a way that the other person gives-up in any given dispute. For example, if I agree to be a life partner with you, and you agree to be a life partner with me, then we agree to tread the same road together. We will no longer be looking out for ourselves, individually. Instead, we agree to look out for ourselves, collectively. We no longer exist as two separate individuals. In our way of thinking, we become one. What is good for me, IS good for us. This is saying EXACTLY the same thing. By playing this game, she is doubting that I am truly thinking in this way. Forever, the woman will doubt this of the husband. She lives in a perpetual state of doubt. It is the perpetual toil husbands will face in marriage... a simple task when you truly think about it. You will never succeed, but is it not still worth it? She will perpetually doubt you, but it is your duty to love her nonetheless. Consistently show her that “you” is the same as “us”. She will forget often. Simply saying to her, in the times when she seems to appeal to “loyalty” or “devotion”, it is important to simply remind her that “you” is the same as “us”... Don't say it in the same way every time. Subconsciously show her. You must HONESTLY be in this point of view to fully achieve what I am talking about. So, this is not a manipulation tactic. This is a “WAY OF THINKING” that will enable you to live wonderfully.In continuation, the wife says, in a fake way, “Well I'm so very happy for you, deary, because, have I got a story for you about the way YOUR CHILD has been treating me.”Father: “What has she done! “ Now, catching on to the game that is being played. Mother: “She told me that she doesn't respect me or anything I say!”Father: “She did?! OUR daughter has some serious explaining to do, because no DAUGHTER of mine disrespects her mother!”Father enters the room. The mother peaks out from behind him, with a stern scowl on her face. The disappointment on her face is as clear as the moon in a vast nigh sky. It is so apparent, it goes beyond mere disappointment. It is a face aimed to make the child ashamed of herself. The goal is to make her feel like she is a “BAD PERSON!” The look creates in her a mental image that she is, at her core, a very bad person and she ought to be ashamed of her very self. That is what it means to be “ashamed of yourself”. Think about this. Truly, think about what it means to be shameful. It means for you to think of the self... the thing that you are... at the core of you... as bad, or wicked... immoral, unjust... despicable... This is what shameful is.What shameful is not, is the idea that 15 years ago, you were NOT AT ALL IN ANY WAY the same person you are today. In fact, 10 years ago you are not the same as you are today. Come to think of it, a few months ago you were a different person than you are now. In fact, I am willing to put forth to you, right now, that you are a different person, a different self, right now than you were 5 minutes ago... no... 5 seconds ago, than you are right now. Think, before you started reading this, you were a different person, totally, after reading it. Now think about the idea of shame. What is there to be shameful of. If you are different, at your core even, right now from how you were 10 minutes ago, what is there to be shameful of? Anything you are is not necessarily what you will become, so what is there to be ashamed of now? Your self (I hate the word “yourself” because it de-emphasizes the concept that there is a “self” that is distinctly “your own”) is merely in a state prescribed to the time of NOW that has changed drastically from the BACK THEN and will undoubtedly change, equally drastically, in the AFTER NOW.So the mother invokes this sense of shame, different from guilt which is the effect of harming another person for the sake of your own self, i.e. selfishness. I suspect that guilt is what you will experience should you ever attempt to manipulate your child in this way ever again after reading this... that is guilt. It is important to distinguish the difference because shame comes from the negative moralistic judgments of other people whereas guilt comes from the regret of some past action. It is important to never think of one's own self as being “bad” for things that we have done in the past. Just think of your self as being “incomplete”. Your way of thinking is not fully established and lead to incorrect outcomes. Just as an operating system is in a constant state of revamping, updates, and even complete over-hall, the self is constantly rethinking, remapping, and readjusting... until it reaches completion.... until it fully understands itself.Now feeling that its very self is something to be shameful of, now that she has judged herself of its quality and found it to be very little, if anything at all. Tears begin to form in the child's eyes.Child: “I'm sorry!!! I'm so, so sorry!”, she yelps as she burrows her face into the palms of her hands. She sobs loudly and her hands and face turn pink and sticky with a combination of tears and mucus which is beginning to collect at the end of her nose. She is utterly pitiful. She is helpless in the dark of her own despair.The father glances at his wife's cold stare and quickly looks back at his daughter.Mother: “...and you know what happens when little girls are disrespectful to their mothers, don't you?” She expresses this as though the question mark was actually a period. There was no question at all, really.The child wheezes as she takes a breath in, followed by the loudest sob yet. The father turns back to his wife, observing the calm demeanor of his wife without any judgment at all.He walks up to his daughter, bends her over his knee. The mother walks out of the room and down the hall. He says calmly, “You... do... not... disrespect... your... mother...”, each word accompanied by a subsequent sting across the bottom.The father releases his daughter, and she immediately scurries off to her bedroom, whaling aloud. While still crying profusely, she closes the door softly, runs and leaps onto her bed, and thrusting her face into her pillow. Her skin no longer stings, and no physical markings will remain. She is utterly destroyed.

If anybody is confused on how a stateless society would operate, I kid you not, Rugrats has given the answer. It is in the form of a parable, just as Jesus described morality to the misguided Jews, there are elements of the media that are also sending messages of truth. http://www.watchcartoononline.com/rugrats-season-2-episode-4-showdown-at-teeter-totter-gulch This is the episode of Rugrats where Tommy Pickles and the rest of the kids at the playground handle conflict, a Hobbesian state of nature, without the state. Watch episode now. Discussion of the episode follows. _______________________________________________________________ Here Tommy Pickles plays the brave hero who challenges the bully by SPEAKING TRUTH TO POWER and demanding that this person subject themselves and their life to reason... the source of truth in the world. The way that the "criminal" is taken down and harmony and peace is restored, is the through the same methodology that Stefan suggests in his philosophical arguments. We have to simply agree that we are no longer going "to play with" the criminals in our society. I will not trade with you. I will not accept payments from you. I will not loan you money. This land does not belong to anybody. It is here for us to use for the benefit of the community. There is a place that is mine, where I sleep at night and wake every morning, but beyond that, everything left is for all of us to work together, share, and prosper with. However, we may run out of chalk to drawn "four-square" plots with... and then we wont be able to play that game. The solution is to ration it. We can establish these "governance institutions" to protect scarce resources without creating a monopoly on the use of initiatory force. I think we can make it a social norm, such as the one that exists for not littering and the church has established for tithing, that a certain amount of charity is expected from a respectable family unit and that goes towards research grants that have played commercials, every "charity season - kind of like Christmas, which we all participate in the act of literally donating money to eachother (gift cards)". I'd also like to leave this quote right here, "Showdown at Teeter-Totter Gulch": "Something happened to him in his first 8 days. I don't know what it is, but after that he changed and doesn't like to see nobody get pushed around." Another website offers an interesting take on the quote. I assumed that this was a message that leadership is something somebody is born with, innately, but instead it may be a reference to circumcision. See here: http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/WesternAnimation/Rugrats?from=Main.Rugrats, scroll down to "circumcision angst" for the argument. "This playground is for kids who get along and play nice!" ~Tommy Pickles This quote is amazing. Soak it in baby. Anyway, I digress... lol. This episode will stimulate thought... well... at least it did for me. Tommy Pickles is a leader, and this is what leadership looks like. It's also important to note that Tommy is incredibly brave and incredibly risky. This is why he benefits so greatly from Chuckie being his best friend. Chuckie is the yin to Tommy's yang. This is also true in The Lord of the Rings, between Frodo and Sam, Sam being Chuckie and Frodo being Tommy. If you look for it, you will see it. Leadership does not come from the guy who politically places himself upon a pedestal and proclaims to the world that he ought to be the one to rule over us all. The person who believes they are suited to such a monumental task is totally insane. Real leaders arise out of a free society. Real leaders of men are the ones that put their own skin in the game. Real leaders are the ones who, rather than send others to their deaths, act without a personal safety-net themselves. Here is an episode that demonstrates this fundamental point: http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xsbu8s_rugrats-the-big-house_shortfilms Watch the full episode where Tommy is placed into prison by the "authorities" for committing no crimes. He actually receives an inception-esque "double prison" - the prison of the five-minute time-out as well as the prison of the day-care center itself. It is EQUIVALENT to the prison of real prison and the prison of the country that you are living in. But understand, the true leaders emerge, and are thrust into leadership out of necessity by the evil powers at be as well as the community's trust, love, and loyalty to him. I understand that Tommy only succeeds because of his mother comes at the end... his creator... and many of you won't enjoy this blatant allegory of the nurturing God introduced by Jesus in the New Testament, but this is a discussion of truth so truth I must tell. "It is a curious thing, Harry, but perhaps those who are best suited to power are those who have never sought it. Those who, like you, have leadership thrust upon them, and take up the mantle because they must, and find to their own surprise that they wear it well." ~Albus Dumbledore (J.K. Rowling) You need to understand that there are two media presences. Everybody talks about the "Illuminati" in the media but people are yet to gain consciousness of the other minds at work in this world. There is good in it, and it is more powerful than any of those that side with evil.

I don't really have any reflections except for a bit of skepticism. Out of curiosity, and assuming you're a white guy, have you ever "worked a room" full of black people? I should mention that I'm not skeptical of what you are saying about yourself. I'm skeptical about how feasible it would be for me to do what you claim to do. You talk about interacting with strangers, approaching them on their level while still staying true to yourself, as if it is a skill that you learned. I'm skeptical in so far as I think this may be more of a talent that you've cultivated... a talent that you possess more, and that I lack to a certain extent.One thing about talent is that it doesn't always mean being the best at something. It often means finding the most enjoyment in something, so the cultivation of that talent becomes free-time rather than work. I don't enjoy talking to strangers. I hate interviews. I don't like being judged. I've learned that people make strong opinions of others based on first impressions. Another way to say this is, people irrationally judge others based on very little information. After coming to this realization, I have since been very averse to first encounters with any person. For me, meeting new people is a horrible affair. It's interesting that I have no problem talking to complete strangers on the internet, when in real life I would never have this conversation with anyone. The intuitive reason for this is because the internet provides anonymity for me, so none of you actually know who I am. That isn't really the full picture. If I knew, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that I wouldn't be harshly judged based on almost zero information, I would have no problem being identified by my full name and appearance.Why do you not experience this same anxiety? The only way not to care seems to be a strain of sociopathy, where the opinions and judgments of strangers are assigned little to no value. I'm not saying you're a sociopath, but rather you have learned to approach strangers as "prospective people" with thoughts and opinions that could matter in the future, and "actual people" who you've gotten to know and who have thoughts and opinions that do, in fact, actually matter to you. If this is truly how you, either consciously or subconsciously, view the world, then I don't know if I want to lose my social anxieties. I choose to see every person's thoughts and opinions as valuable, even if they are incorrect.

All I am looking for in a woman is:1) She is fun to be around2) She strongly desires to be around meMy problem is that there are very few girls that are actually fun to be around. They gossip, are concerned with fashion, like watching stupid television shows like "Keeping up with the Kardashians" or "Say Yes to he Dress", are unable or unwilling to relate to me in any way, and they often have very superficial and dominant expectations of how a "real man" is supposed to act or behave.There are also very few girls that actually want to be around me. Most women are looking for nothing more than social status and wealth. They seriously don't give a damn about me, as a person.

Contrary to popular belief, on this forum at least, everything that is wrong with the world can't be chalked up to a lack of male parental figures. Honestly, the fact that one role model in your life happens to have a penis doesn't seem to be a majorly important qualification. We seriously need to stop with this bullshit. All that matters is that, in early childhood, every child learns that he/she has intrinsic value, a.k.a. is worth more than all the power and riches of the entire world. It is the duty of the parent to instill this lesson in their children. Any child, earlier than six years old, that doesn't have this lesson ingrained in them, due to lack of caring, will suffer serious psychological side effects. The reason why this is important is because, if they understand that they have intrinsic value, it is a very small leap to reach the conclusion that everybody has intrinsic value. The idea that "I am not the exception to the rule" becomes comprehensible. Every human life is precious.I cannot stress how important this is. It is the duty of every person who chooses to have a child to teach this lesson. It is of the highest priority. It is a matter of life and death. You are so... so... precious. You are worth fighting for. You are the light of the world. Your actions have consequences that can shake the foundations of the Earth. Based on this premise, you are not alone. Your neighbor is on the same ship as you. We are here together... and each of us faces the same road. We live the same life. We feel the same hurts.This is the most important thing. I cannot stress this enough.

I need relationship advise. What I truly want, deep down, is for a girl to desperately want to spend time with me, and for me to desperately want to spend time with her. I realize this requires, not only for her to like me in a very strong way, but for me to also like her, beyond appearance and social status. My question is, is this too much to ask? Am I looking for something that is beyond thought? Is this an unrealistic expectation?I think this ultimately boils down to what everybody wants, consciously or subconsciously. I think that, in the U.S., we have so many divorces because women and men are raised so fundamentally different that we can no longer relate to eachother on a level that results in this kind of mutual longing for the company of the other. Women are so fundamentally different from men, due to environmental factors in early childhood, that neither gender can relate on such a fundamental level that we truly love eachother. I hope that I'm wrong... but I have not come close to finding this thing that I am looking for and I fear that I will never find it. I am afraid it does not exist.The sad thing is that I have found this in other men. I love spending time with them. What is sad about this is that I'm not gay. My sexual attraction is only for the female form. I envy homosexuals. I envy what they have... how they can relate.

Firstly, I said I didn't read the book. Secondly, if you are going to introduce a new topic on a public forum, it's intuitively obvious that you should define your terms and not make the assumption that everybody has read some obscure book with an exceptionally long title.Jiddu Krishnamurti has said, "The ability to observe without evaluating is the highest form of intelligence." If what you say is true, Stalin's son threw fecal matter everywhere, was told that others disapproved of this behavior, and then he killed himself. You have evaluated these observations to imply causation between them. His lack of sanitation CAUSED people to complain which CAUSED him to commit suicide. Alternatively, he could just be crazy. Crazy people throw feces everywhere. Crazy people kill themselves.Jiddu Krishnamurti has also said, "Is the ending of the self, death? Death in the ordinary sense of the word... it's not obviously. The self is non-existence. There is no identification of any kind, with experience, with belief, with country, with wife, husband, with Allah. Is that death? People who say, 'If I don't identify myself with my something-or-other, then I'm nothing." So, they are afraid of being nothing, and then identify. But nothingness, which is not a thing, is quite a different state of mind."So any definition that you can give "the self", which is why defining terms is so important and why, if you do that, you will see no coherent argument can be made, gives the same logical conclusion. The self is nothing more than an identification one makes in fear of being nothing at all.Now let's talk about human waste. The smell is unpleasant to the vast majority of rational individuals on this planet. Therefore, these individuals that make up societies have concluded that if will be in everybody's best interest to separate ourselves from our waste. By this I mean, life becomes more pleasant for everybody by separating ourselves from our waste. The question then arises about who will be the one to remove our waste from our societies. A social institution exists that can handle this public service called, "government". To assume that there is anything deeper, philosophically or psychologically, void of reason and evidence, is to deny rational thought.

This is pretty reasonable. I mean, it's a common pool resource right? Just like an aquifer, the oil reserves will run out due to over-extraction. The resource belongs to whoever wants to extract from it, but extraction rates need to be regulated some how, or else it will be depleted. "The people" choose to regulate the extraction of this finite resource through government. It's a perfectly understandable decision. Some of those people are upset with the way the government is regulating the extraction, but that doesn't mean those people no longer want regulation... They just want different regulation... regulation that benefits themselves at the expense of others.

This question is a bit too ambiguous to answer. There are basically two possible questions you are asking which have two very different answers.1) Can animals be guilty of violating the non-aggression principle?If this is your question, then I think the answer is no. I believe the reason why humans have risen above the ranks of non-human animals, achieving great societies, technological advancements, and securing a dominant place at the top of the food chain, is because of our ability to conceptualize moral behavior. I can walk out my front door with the expectation that another human being will not kill my children so that he can increase his chances of successfully impregnating my wife. Why is this true? Because 99.99% of the human population understands that this would be horribly immoral and agrees to defend me, my wife, and my children in the event that some sick and twisted individual does attempt to do this. In other species of primates, this is sadly not the case. Our use of language enables us to think morally in this way. Animals also are not capable of such sophisticated language... and therefore are not capable of such sophisticated thought. Just to prove this point to you, imagine trying to think about abstract concepts without any language (mathematical notation included). It's not even comprehensible, for me at least.2) Can human beings be guilty of violating the non-aggression principle against animal victims?I think the answer is yes. How can we claim that setting a cow on fire and watching it burn is any less of a violation than slaughtering it in a typical fashion for consumption? I suppose there is less suffering involved in the latter... but at no point do we define the NAP based upon how much suffering is involved. In one of Stephan's resent videos, he talks about how property rights are foundational to life. He cites as an example that squirrels collect nuts in the wild, and store them to protect against thieves. He also claims that most species of birds build nests for their eggs, and will defend that particular nest. The bird recognizes the difference between their own nest and the nest of a bird that happens to be living in a tree nearby. However, would it be a violation of the NAP for one squirrel to steal the nuts of another or for one bird to steal the parental investment of another (parasite egg laying birds). Of course not. Certain species of birds whole existence involves laying eggs in another bird's nest. I don't think we would call these birds immoral. However, would it be a violation of the NAP for a human being to steal the nuts that were collected by a squirrel? That isn't so obvious.

I think the easiest thing to say when someone asks is that you are an epistemological skeptic. I don't think your "agnostic" views are limited only to God. I think you align with the idea that you can truly know that you exist and that your perceptions of the world exist, which are only internal things, but to actually say anything external to your mind exists in reality would be a leap of faith not based in reason nor legitimate evidence.Essentially, you would hold that, if a claim cannot be proved, then it cannot be known. Since you cannot prove that I exist (not you but me, on the other end of the internet... lol) then you cannot know it. You can look up the classic "brain in a vat" argument as well as "the problem of other minds" for more details.Furthermore, in relation to the existence of God and epistemology, there are other epistemological theories of justification to consider. I would point towards coherentism. I am a theist. I believe that it is possible to KNOW that God exists without ever perceiving Him. There are SEVERAL beliefs that I have that result in an incoherent world view should God not exist, therefore I know He does. This can be off-putting at first, but since those other beliefs that I have are so well justified, and would otherwise be incoherent should God not exist, it is justified for me to believe that God does exist.

Except for when, you know, the government threatens the custody rights of the parent on behalf of the child or the child manipulates the parents into attacking one another on behalf of the child. I understand that we, the people on this forum, tend to take the side of the child over the parent because of the apparent power disparity. However, it's important to understand that it's not the rulers against the ruled. This example shows how a child can use the power of one parent to harm the other parent. It's not all that different from how the American people try to use the power of their particular political party to harm people who belong to another political party, or socio-economic group.

I'll just be the first to say, I have no idea what you're talking about. I've never heard of Milan Kundera and certainly never read his epic sexual archetype bible, The Unbearable Lightness of Being. That being said, I'm going to go ahead and try to address your points ignorantly regardless... because this is the internet and that's what the internet is for.The first assertion is that a denial of one's waste is a denial of one's self, existentially. Firstly, I have no clue what it means to deny your own waste? Secondly, I don't think it's possible to deny one's self. The act of denying implies a self that is the thing that is doing the denying. Therefore, it is truly baffling how or why a person would make the claim that a denial of one's waste (whatever that actually means) is a denial of one's self (a physical impossibility). I mean, is the denying of one's waste the same thing as removing it? This post is a convoluted mess.

I have a question regarding moral responsibility and whether it exists. First of all, I want to define what Moral Responsibility is. There are two points of contention. The first is something the hard determinist would find fault in; i.e. the part about responsibility. The determinist says that all human action was determined by prior events and the laws of nature such that the individual had no choice, and could not have acted alternatively. I have no problem rejecting this view. Suppose a car is dangling off the edge of a cliff linked to a tree by a metal chain. What the determinist is suggesting is that you can not point to an individual link of the chain and say that it is responsible for the car not falling. I would agree that there may be other responsible agents however each link still holds responsibility. My contention is with the "moral" aspect of moral responsibility. This means to judge a person's actions on their moral rightness and wrongness. Here Stefan gives us one answer and some pretty clear reasoning why @ 23:20 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mW1rDRMl1KM&feature=player_embedded#t=1435 Stefan seems to be saying that moralistic evaluations are wrong because it's lacking understanding of why a person did what they did (lacking knowledge of prior deterministic events). However, I've also heard Stefan say things such as this, by Ayn Rand: To be quite honest, I think Ayn Rand is just flat out wrong here. She creates a red herring in this argument by saying that rejecting moral judgement of others is equivalent to tolerance. There is a huge difference. When a man murders somebody, instead of moralistically judging the man as a murderer, I would try to answer why he murdered rather than merely labeling him as a murder. By doing so, you are eliminating the possibility that lurking variables could have led him to this behavior. Of course, I don't deny that he murdered. I merely question whether our judgement of the person who performed the act can ever be justified.

Note: I unfortunately couldn't get the videos to embed correctly. If anybody has a solution for that (like a link that might have the solution) I'd appreciate the help. Hey guys, just thought I'd post some cognitive dissonance. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qaVoq5WCKx8 If you're not familiar with American college football, that is a small and impressionable child who is getting praised and rewarded for violently beating a dummy resembling an opposing player in the game of American football. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KqhfLTsEeZg but yeah... if you don't spank your kids, that's how we're going to get them to not be violent sociopaths. It's sad when the TV is actually a better parent than the mother and father. Stefan, please tell us how to solve this problem... crickets.p.s.In another video he has his kids dressed up as superheroes as they interrogate the family's house cat, using intimidation tactics to try to force a confession of "eating up that plant". I swear you can't make this stuff up.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vZUEnNDH4RY ... and another one where the kid is just yelling "equality" repeatedly. Not freedom... but equality... which I'm assuming he would have no problem using violence to achieve. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W7i-OnA8rWk but at least he's teaching a lesson about good food choices. Because morality is about choosing to eat responsibly. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7drttEwz52Q When I was his age, my parents were impressed that I could recite the Lord's Prayer. Not this, a song about a violent French rebellion. The rebels who are portrayed in the song as heroes were seen as an extremist minority in government propaganda of that time.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ez-CnmH28fQAnd I'm pretty sure my mother would send me to time out if she saw me playing like this, but not this dad. He encourages it.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0CEb8a5EShk Because it's fun to do mean things to people you don't like... and Michigan fans don't like Michigan State fans. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1cMcXFAEdrU Stefan, you have suggested unschooling and refraining from physically abusing children. I agree that parents shouldn't hit their own children that they supposedly love and care deeply about. I have a problem with the notion that this will solve the broader problem of prevent sociopaths in our society when violence is a fundamental pillar of it. Remember, this dad is a good father who plays with his kids all the time and never would dream of hitting them.

If what you say is true, then what does Gandalf represent? The dwarves needed Bilbo for reasons that the dwarves clearly could not perceive themselves, but Gandalf could. The hobbit clearly doesn't get drawn into this fantasy and lie, due to stockholm syndrome, because he is pushed into it by Gandalf. Bilbo did great things to help the dwarves, and it cost him dearly. There are "scars" that Bilbo will carry for the rest of his life, and those scars are very evident in the films.

In our world, there is no ring of power. In the real world, there is an entity like the ring of power though. What is there that, for whoever bears it, has the power to take a life or to spare one - such as the power that Bilbo aquired? "true courage is about not knowing when to take a life, but when to spare one" ~Gandalf The answer is the state. Just as the people of Middle-earth try very hard to aquire the ring of power, people of reality try equally hard to attain the greatest position of power - head of state. The ring is a physical representation of what the state is. I don't think it's really about "capacity" to attain power. Bilbo, rather effortlessly and mostly through the power of the ring, attained political power over his entire company of dwarves. They looked to him for what they ought to do in every step of their journey once Gandalf left them pryor to entering Mirkwood. The difference between hobbits and... basically everyone else... is that hobbits have no DESIRE to gain arbitrary and unaccountable authority. I think you're mostly right here. I would change your characterization of the hobbits from being "like children" to being "uncorrupted and innocent that can sometimes go as far as being sheltered and naive". Orcs are sociopaths. They have no conscience. They even will kill and eat other orcs if it suits them. Humans are the kameleons. They can take the metaphysical form of any race. For instance, Aragorn is basically an elf. The beauty of humans is that they can be persuaded and taught to be like other races.

Quoted for emphasis and full-hearted agreement. Remember, even Frodo failed to destroy the ring of power after making the long journey to Mount Doom. I think The Lord of the Rings was a great example of how incredibly difficult it is to destroy the state once you have tasted its power. If you recall, tolkien's 'bad stuff' are all machinery of war. Fireworks, for example, are great fun.

I believe J. R. R. Tolkien wrote The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings such that they expressed, what he believed to be, a message from God. It is known that Tolkien believed pagan myths were imperfect expressions of God's heart, imagination, and feelings. Tolkien's friend, C. S. Lewis, once said, "Myths are lies and therefore worthless, even though breathed through silver." Tolkien responded saying that myths were the best way of expressing truths that, in many cases, would otherwise be unexpressable.Knowing this, let's examine the characters. The highest powers in the free world of Middle-Earth are members of The Second White Council. Those include Saruman the White, Gandalf the Grey, Lady Galadriel, Master Elrond, and Cirdan the Shipwright. Gandalf and Saruman are opposing forces within the literature. In The Return of the King, after becoming a white wizard, Gandalf mentions that he is Saruman as he should have been. What is that? Elrond answers that question in The Hobbit. Gandalf, like Lady Galadriel and Saruman, is "a guardian to stand watch over Middle-earth". What distinguishes Gandalf from the other "guardians" is that he is this "moralistically good" opposing force to Saruman. He is meant to be a beacon of truth in the face of Saruman's deception and corruption.That leads me to the main point. Gandalf is an anarchist. First, we know that Gandalf loves hobbits. Specifically, he loves their way of life. Hobbits have no government. Everyone is treated as family and everyone is held accountable to eachother. That is important. There is still crime, such as theft and destruction of property, yet no law enforcement. Hobbits have created a community of mutual cooperation and accountability. Also, check out this quote: "Saruman believes it is only great power that can hold evil in check, but that is not what I have found. I found it is the small everyday deeds of ordinary folk that keep the darkness at bay. Small acts of kindness and love. Why Bilbo Baggins? Perhaps because I am afraid, and he gives me courage." ~GandalfIf any of you haven't seen The Lord of the Rings movies, I highly suggest you look into them. If you haven't picked up on the themes, I suggest you reexamine them. In my opinion, The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings provide more underlying truth than any movie or book I have ever read.

It is good that you are confused by this. Please don't confuse anything I said in the OP to mean that you are personally capable of offending anyone under any circumstance. You may supply the stimulus for a person to become offended. However, you are incapable of controling the feelings of others. Any time a person becomes angry, it is because they heard what you said as a judgement, criticism, or demand rather than an observation, suggestion, or request. Hopefully I can clear this up for you. The idea of disliking a person doesn't make sense to me. You can dislike their behavior. You can dislike their mode of communication. You can dislike their stimuli analysis. But to dislike a person is to reject the tragedy of the pain that this person experiences. It is to reject all empathic connection and to deny deeper understanding. This is ultimately what it means to not judge others. We have been trained since birth to label people. We have been trained that certain actions are wrong. We have seldom been educated to understand another person's pain and empathize with the joy that willful giving brings. To love your neighbor is to love yourself. To hate is to deny what is alive in all of us.

Please define "extraordinary". I believe "extraordinary" in a developmental context would simply mean having the capacity to relate empathically to other's feelings and needs as well as understand the connection between one's own feelings and needs very easily; such as how Marshall Rosenberg describes in his nonviolent communication seminars. If this is the case, it is very easy to see how one may believe that the correct environmental conditions could create a perfectly mentally healthy individual regardless of genetic predisposition. By that same logic, you can also make the case that, for a person that is genetically fortunate, less than perfect environmental conditions could yield a perfectly mentally healthy individual as well. Thus, the value of genetics is still preserved while also conceding the inordinately high value of environment. I would also like you to define "specific care". If a parent sufficiently practicing peaceful parenting, there is no "specific care". This would have no meaning under my definition of "peaceful parenting". In your example, you explain that peaceful parenting is not enough if the child is diabetic. The parent would also need to adress the dietary needs that are unique to people who suffer from diabetes. My question is, if a parent is aware of a child's diabetic needs, why is that not encompassed by your definition of peaceful parenting? If a child has unique needs that a parent is aware of, and the parent willfully neglects those needs, how is that peaceful parenting? I guess the broader misconception is I also don't understand your definition of "generic peaceful parenting".

There is no one philosophical approach that answers the question, "What ought I do?" but rather almost all of the philosophical approaches are correct for different situations. NOTE: UPB resolves the question of "what ought I never do", which we have found to be very useful at limiting the failed attempts at resolving the question, "what ought I do" which is clearly very different. Perhaps my analysis of UPB is flawed though, since if what I say is true, it should probably be called Not Universally Preferable Behavior (NUPB).Resolving which approach is correct for which situation can be seen as trying to solve a sadoku puzzle for each and every human interaction. Even questions like, "what is the goal of this social interaction?" can be one piece of information that unravels several other critical questions that, when resolved, lead to the objectively true answer of "what ought I do". The computational power of our brains is the limiting factor. For too many of us, "getting the other to like me" tends to be the correct answer in every social interaction. Once that is accomplished, we emediately switch to the question, "how can it be used to accomodate my needs?". This begs several more questions such as, "What are my needs?" and "how do I know, after getting it, if I needed it?". We all then take different appraoches that we assess as "need fulfilling" or "not need fulfilling".The unfortunate truth is we all once knew what the answers were to these questions. As we grow older, we begin to gradually have these answers drained from us. This is why children will sometimes say things that will shock us about its insight / different perception of reality. This is why, as we age, we slowly lose our happiness. Then we lose our ability to communicate what our needs are. We begin to judge others. Then, since we now judge, what if other people are judging us? I did not judge, and was thrust into a world of people who did - as I became aware of the world.

It's almost like talking to a wall... a wall that strawmans you by directly quoting your position and then saying, "ALL logical theories do not correspond to empircal observation. To wit: "the sky is green." See? There is no correspondence to empircal observation, because I can posit anything I want." as if I never actually said, "[/font]unless there is a false axiom in the logical proof or lurking variables in the empirical observation." Then you wonder why I keep reasserting my original position... ugh... it's because you keep STRAWMANNING ME! So let's look at your example. Are we living in a world that conforms to our current number conventions? So in REALITY 2+2=4? Okay, I'm going to assume that's what we're doing. Proposition: 2+2=5 I can already disprove this LOGICALLY though. There is no scope or condition for which 2+2 ever will =5. Empirical evidence is not required to test this logical theory... simply because we have defined the number 2 and the number 4 and the action of addition to mean, by definition, 2+2=4. Okay... but now you're creating an entirely new universe where all addition has an additional (+1)? Awesome! This has absolutely no correlation to my "objects falling" example. I don't need to define an entirely new universe for all objects to fall at the same rate. In fact, in reality, all objects do fall at the same rate when affected by equivalent external forces. The theory of physics was only proved wrong empirically because of LURKING VARIABLES in the observation process. Thanks for the rant on cooking and table salt... but what's your point? Therefore empirical evidence trumps logical theories when they conflict? Or maybe your point was just to waste my time.[/font]

This is factually inaccurate again. The conclusion "all objects fall at the same rate" is based off of premises that pressuppose the scope of the logical argument that, yes, was omitted. Again, it was omitted INTENTIONALLY because I was specifically picking an example of a logical theory that conflicted with emprical observation. I've already gone over this. All logical theories correspond with empirical observations unless there is a false axiom in the logical proof or lurking variables in the empirical observation.Tou all are missing the point! Empirical observation doesn't trump logical argumentation! That's the whole point of this.